ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2024
Learning to explain is a good biomedical few-shot learner.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large language models for predicting one-year major adverse cardiovascular events in acute coronary syndrome.iScience · 2026Article
- Prompt-based bioinformatic pipeline generation for a multi-step metaviral workflow.Bioinformatics advances · 2026Article
- ECSA: Mitigating Catastrophic Forgetting and Few-Shot Generalization in Medical Visual Question Answering.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
- Understanding Generative Artificial Intelligence Adoption in Puerto Rican Medical Schools: A Cross-Institutional Survey of First- and Second-Year Students.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationSignificant progress has been achieved in biomedical text mining using deep learning methods, which rely heavily on large amounts of high-quality data annotated by human experts. However, the reality is that obtaining high-quality annotated data is extremely challenging due to data scarcity (e.g. rare or new diseases), data privacy and security concerns, and the high cost of data annotation. Additionally, nearly all researches focus on predicting labels without providing corresponding explanations. Therefore, in this paper, we investigate a more realistic scenario, biomedical few-shot learning, and explore the impact of interpretability on biomedical few-shot learning.
resultsWe present LetEx-Learning to explain-a novel multi-task generative approach that leverages reasoning explanations from large language models (LLMs) to enhance the inductive reasoning ability of few-shot learning. Our approach includes (1) collecting high-quality explanations by devising a suite of complete workflow based on LLMs through CoT prompting and self-training strategies, (2) converting various biomedical NLP tasks into a text-to-text generation task in a unified manner, where collected explanations serve as additional supervision between text-label pairs by multi-task training. Experiments are conducted on three few-shot settings across six biomedical benchmark datasets. The results show that learning to explain improves the performances of diverse biomedical NLP tasks in low-resource scenario, outperforming strong baseline models significantly by up to 6.41%. Notably, the proposed method makes the 220M LetEx perform superior reasoning explanation ability against LLMs. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Our source code and data are available at https://github.com/cpmss521/LetEx.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.